ÀÏ˾»úÎçÒ¹¸£Àû

View the related checklists about Principal

Commercial contract review and execution (business personnel)—checklist

Commercial contract review and execution (business personnel)—checklist This is a Checklist for in-house lawyers to provide to those of its employees (eg procurement or sales professionals) who are engaged in negotiating commercial contracts. It sets out the primary issues to consider when negotiating or reviewing a business-to-business commercial contract, and includes practical guidance. This Checklist may be suitable for use in low risk contracts where employees who are not legally qualified are authorised to conduct negotiations and contract review. It may be customised as required to work with a company playbook on contract negotiation and review, to include suggested fall-back drafting positions and escalation points for recourse to a legal team as appropriate. As it is intended to be used by non-legal professionals, it does not include links to further detailed legal commentary in each case. For a Checklist intended for use by legal professionals with links to further information, see: Commercial contract drafting and review—checklist. In-house lawyers should check that business personnel engaged in negotiating and concluding commercial contracts...

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived]

Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—timeline [Archived] Archived:This timeline has been archived. For developments from January 2024 onwards, see EU Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive—timeline if they relate to the EU BRRD, or UK bank recovery and resolution regime—timeline if they relate to the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, For further guidance on the EU BRRD, see Practice Note: Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD)—essentials. For further guidance on the UK bank recovery and resolution regime, see Practice Note: The UK bank recovery and resolution regime. Date Source Document Description 20 December 2023 European Banking Authority The EBA publishes amendments to disclosures and reporting on MREL and TLAC The European Banking Authority (EBA) has published its final draft implementing technical standards (ITS) on amendments to disclosure and reporting of the minimum requirement for own funds and eligible liabilities (MREL) and the total loss absorbency requirement (TLAC). The amendments reflect the new requirement to deduct investments in eligible liabilities instruments of entities belonging to the same resolution group, the...

View the related flowcharts about Principal

Industrial action that has statutory immunity—flowchart

Industrial action that has statutory immunity—flowchart FORTHCOMING CHANGE: The legal framework for giving protected status to industrial action and picketing is to be amended under clauses 54 to 61 of the Employment Rights Bill, introduced on 10 October 2024 (see Practice Note: The right to take industrial action—Employment Rights Bill). Clause 118 of the Bill confirms that many of the proposed changes will come into force two months after the Employment Rights Act 2025 is passed. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023 will be repealed on the day on which the Act is passed. For further information on the Employment Rights Bill, generally, see Employment News Analysis: The Employment Rights Bill, and Employment Rights Bill 2024-views from the sector, LNB News 10/10/2024 85. To track the progress of the Bill through Parliament, see Practice Note: Employment Rights Bill—tracker. The government also launched a public consultation on creating a modern framework for industrial relations. The consultation seeks views on several specific...

View the related practice notes about Principal

Electronic communications: Universal Service Directive [Archived]

Electronic communications: Universal Service Directive [Archived] ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This Practice Note relates to Directive 2002/22/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks and services as amended by Directive 2009/136/EC (Universal Service Directive). It is part of a series of Practice Notes on core elements of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications. In the EU, the provision of electronic communications networks and services in each Member State is governed by a common regulatory framework which originally comprised five directives (the Framework). The objective of the Framework was to establish a harmonised framework for the regulation of electronic communications networks and services throughout the EU. In December 2018, Directive (EU) 2018/1972 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (Recast) (the European Electronic Communications Code) was published in the Official Journal of the EU and came into force three days after publication. The European Electronic Communications Code...

Will interpretation—property passing on death

Will interpretation—property passing on death Rules relating to the construction of Wills have developed over many years and those surrounding the interpretation of dispositions were quite unclear due to the differing rules relating to personalty and realty. This was changed by the statutory effect of the Administration of Justice Act 1982 (AJA 1982). The case of Marley v Rawlings confirmed that the modern approach is to ascertain the testator’s intention from their words. While no longer as definitive as they were previously, many of the previous rules remain a helpful starting point. On the basis of the caselaw in this area, practitioners are advised to use only precedents that are in common usage and not to depart from them without careful consideration. References to property in a Will speak from the date of death A reference to real and/or personal property (for a discussion of real and personal estate, see Practice Note: Devolution of assets and the need for a grant) in a Will speaks from the...

View the related precedents about Principal

Finance provisions—joint venture shareholders’ agreement

ALTERNATIVE 1: PROVISION FOR FUTURE LOANS BY SHAREHOLDERS Clause 1 Insert a new definition as follows (if not already included): Respective Proportion means, in relation to a Shareholder, the proportion which the number of Shares held by that Shareholder bears to the total number of issued Shares of the Company; Replace clause 9.3 with the following new clauses 9.3 and 9.4: 9.3 In the event that, at any time during the term of this Agreement, any such borrowings are not available or do not satisfy the working capital requirements of the Company as determined by the Board, each of the Shareholders, when requested from time to time, lend to the Company its Respective Proportion of the amount specified by the...

No partnership or agency clause

1 No partnership or agency—short form Nothing in this agreement constitutes, or will be deemed to constitute, a partnership between the parties n

View the related q&as about Principal

What is the position of a security holder if the company that created the security is dissolved?

What is the position of a security holder if the company that created the security is dissolved? This Q&A focuses on the impact the dissolution of a security provider can have on the ability of a security holder to effectively enforce its security. It also considers the position of a receiver appointed by the security holder prior to the dissolution of the relevant company. Summary If a security provider is dissolved as a matter of English law it is normally still possible for the security holder to enforce the security it holds by exercising the mortgagee’s power of sale. There may be circumstances in any particular case that make an application to restore the dissolved company to the register desirable to protect the security holder’s position. Circumstances where this issue commonly arises The problems associated with a security provider being dissolved while security is in force occur most often in real estate finance and other asset finance transactions. Typically, these issues arise where a special purpose...

How do the provisions of paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010 impact consideration of whether or not a maintained school can let part of the school premises to a third party for use as a nursery two–four years olds?

How do the provisions of paragraph 4 of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Academies Act 2010 impact consideration of whether or not a maintained school can let part of the school premises to a third party for use as a nursery two–four years olds? The Academies Act 2010 (AcA 2010) and regulations made thereunder makes provision for the transfer of land from the local authority to the Academy Trust. While there is power in AcA 2010, Sch 1 Pt 1 to provide for outright transfer, the guidance from the Department for Education in its document, Land Transfer Advice (April 2013) is that in the vast majority of cases the transfer will be by way of a 125-year lease to the Academy Trust, thus preserving the public land. It is usually only in those cases where a school already owns their own land prior to conversion to an academy that there will be a transfer of the freehold. The general power of a local authority to make disposals of...

View the related News about Principal

Share Incentives weekly highlights—12 December 2024

This week's edition of Share Incentives weekly highlights includes (1) in relation to employee benefit trusts, the cases of JTC Employer Solutions Trustee Ltd v Garnett and also MR Currell Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, (2) the Welsh Government publishing its Budget for 2025–26, and (3) a consultation published by the Financial Conduct Authority which includes proposals for updating the FCA’s Handbook to align with the new edition of the UK Corporate Governance Code that was published in January 2024.

Release from reverse indemnity undertakings (Knight v Barnsley)

Private Client analysis: Her Honour Judge Hilder determined that the Court of Protection did have jurisdiction to determine a dispute over the claimant’s deputy’s release from reverse indemnity undertakings, on the basis that this was the method of resolution the parties had agreed to in the settlement agreement that provided for the reverse indemnity undertakings, albeit she doubted whether it was ‘right’ for civil disputes to be brought to the Court of Protection in this way. She also considered the potential tension in the Court of Protection’s role in such cases and adopted an approach to determining the dispute that aimed to ameliorate that tension whilst maintaining the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA 2005)—mandated focus on P’s best interests. Written by Katherine Hampshire, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers.